Jump to content

Distance between geocaches rule too prescriptive?


Recommended Posts

There are two locations near to me that I have permission from the land owners to place a cache. One is a windmill and one a perfectly circular and prettily railed off area of land that is held in trust to preserve an open area of land in a suburban area. They are both perfect locations for a geocache and would take people to the interesting and unusual kind of places that us geocachers love. Unfortunately they are both less than the overly prescriptive geocaching rules of at least 528 feet/161 meters/ 0.1 miles apart and to that of an additional cache already placed at a local church. They are all in the suburbs of a city, not the countryside, and on different streets to each other. I think the reviewer is being overly severe in interpreting the rules in this case. What do you think?

Link to comment

I think he is interpreting the guideline properly. The overall goal of the guideline is to reduce the number of caches in a given area.

 

When I've had several interersting spots I wanted to highlight that are within the .1 mile guideline I've done like MazdaRoy did and made it into a multi.

Link to comment

If you are making a multi that takes people to places less than the specified distance apart why not just have a geocache there? That's like saying, 'Do not sit on the grass, unless you sit on it on the way to somewhere else'. You are still going there as part of geocaching so not really reducing the number of geocaches in the area, just pretending to. I just think it's a rule that needs to be interpreted on a case by case basis not stuck to rigidly. In this case the rule is hindering rather than helping in my opinion.

Link to comment

If you are making a multi that takes people to places less than the specified distance apart why not just have a geocache there? That's like saying, 'Do not sit on the grass, unless you sit on it on the way to somewhere else'. You are still going there as part of geocaching so not really reducing the number of geocaches in the area, just pretending to. I just think it's a rule that needs to be interpreted on a case by case basis not stuck to rigidly. In this case the rule is hindering rather than helping in my opinion.

 

It's unfortunate when there are two really good spots to place a physical container cache at each location but the proximity guideline prevents you from doing so. However, well over a million caches have been placed over the last 11 years under that limitation.

 

You're suggestion that the rule be interpreted on a case by case basis has been made before. What criteria do you think should be used for that interpretation? Essentially, you're asking reviewers to determine if a cache should be placed within .1 miles of another based upon the quality of the cache/location. That's never going to happen.

Link to comment

If you are making a multi that takes people to places less than the specified distance apart why not just have a geocache there? That's like saying, 'Do not sit on the grass, unless you sit on it on the way to somewhere else'. You are still going there as part of geocaching so not really reducing the number of geocaches in the area, just pretending to. I just think it's a rule that needs to be interpreted on a case by case basis not stuck to rigidly. In this case the rule is hindering rather than helping in my opinion.

 

actually it isn't, its more like saying "this is an interesting spot and it should have an ammo not a micro"

 

of course it reduces the number of caches, there is no container at that location, just a virtual stage

 

your aim is to get people to see those places, regardless of the fact that the cache is physically there or not

when you design your multi you achieve that by making them visit those spots and collect information for the next stage or the final, mission accomplished

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

Unfortunately they are both less than <snip> 528 feet/161 meters/ 0.1 miles apart and to that of an additional cache already placed at a local church.

Not that it matters much, but you don't say how much they miss the guidelines by. We have no way of knowing if your reviewer is being overly restrictive without knowing if they miss the guidelines by one foot or by one hundred feet.

 

That said, reviewers tend to very rarely make exceptions to that guideline because one exception leads to another, then another, and soon they become meaningless.

Link to comment

Exactly why need virtual caches. :D

 

In the meantime hide a cache somewhere nearby and mention in the listing "While you are here you might want to visit the neat statue at xx coordinate and see the great view from yy coordinate".

 

If your intent is to share interesting places that will take care of it.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

Be creative!

Make a multi, Off-Set or Puzzle out of it.

 

Those that do it will appreciate it much more and they will focus on what is interesting about both locations.

 

... or, alternatively, work it out with the other CO. Maybe they will move the cache if it's in a insignificant spot.

 

Even better, create two Waymarks for the locations!!! :D

Link to comment

Unfortunately they are both less than the overly prescriptive geocaching rules of at least 528 feet/161 meters/ 0.1 miles apart and to that of an additional cache already placed at a local church.

 

Perhaps you could try to take contact with the owner of the cache at the local church. Perhaps this cache can be moved to another place near the church (eg. opposite yours), so both of you could have caches in the area.

Link to comment

The distance from the existing cache to the OP's nano is 456 feet.

 

That's only 72 feet. I know of one cache that was allowed to be hidden 526 feet from another. This is only 70 feet more than that. What's the problem?:blink:

That it's a nano, so it isn't worth the effort.

Yes. I found it curious that a reviewer volunteered that the cache was a nano, as if that makes a difference in the decision to publish it.

 

The proximity guidelines are one of the few that actually give a rationale:

The two main goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist, and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider.

 

This of course means that sometimes good cache locations have to be passed on because they are too close. On rare cases you can convince a reviewer that an exception should be made. But most of the time, even it you have found the most perfect place ever to hide a cache, the reviewer is going to tell you to find an area where there isn't already a cache so close. Anohter option is to work with the cache owner of the existing cache. They may be willing to move their cache or archive it.

 

The rationale also explains why the distance doesn't apply to stages within a multi-cache. A cacher may choose to make there cache a multi-cache and take you to several locations. As far as the guidelines are concerned this one cache, even though several containers may be hidden.

Link to comment

If you are making a multi that takes people to places less than the specified distance apart why not just have a geocache there? That's like saying, 'Do not sit on the grass, unless you sit on it on the way to somewhere else'. You are still going there as part of geocaching so not really reducing the number of geocaches in the area, just pretending to. I just think it's a rule that needs to be interpreted on a case by case basis not stuck to rigidly. In this case the rule is hindering rather than helping in my opinion.

 

No, it's more like saying don't sit on the grass, merely look at it and count the number of dandelions and add 127 to that number in order to get to the next stage of your cache so that it meets the guidelines.

 

You've been around for 3 years, found a few hundred caches, and are just now discovering that we have some guidelines to follow when placing new caches? :blink:

 

Sorry, your sense of entitlement does not get an endorsement from me, and it seems not many others in this thread. Find a creative solution to your issue. Your reviewer is interpreting the guidelines correctly, and is not being overly restrictive.

 

Since they are merely guidelines and subject to a reviewer's whim, what if yours told you that he felt that 600' would be a more appropriate separation in this part of town?

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment

If you are making a multi that takes people to places less than the specified distance apart why not just have a geocache there? That's like saying, 'Do not sit on the grass, unless you sit on it on the way to somewhere else'. You are still going there as part of geocaching so not really reducing the number of geocaches in the area, just pretending to. I just think it's a rule that needs to be interpreted on a case by case basis not stuck to rigidly. In this case the rule is hindering rather than helping in my opinion.

 

I think you'll find yourself alone in that opinion.

Link to comment

Exactly why need virtual caches. :D

 

In the meantime hide a cache somewhere nearby and mention in the listing "While you are here you might want to visit the neat statue at xx coordinate and see the great view from yy coordinate".

 

If your intent is to share interesting places that will take care of it.

 

In agreement with this as an alternative

Link to comment

Yes. I found it curious that a reviewer volunteered that the cache was a nano, as if that makes a difference in the decision to publish it.

<snip>

 

I cannot pretend to know what was in the mind of that reviewer but I can tell you what I took from the fact that the proposed cache was a nano. The OP intended the caching experience to be about the location and perhaps the difficulty of finding a nano. The other aspects of geocaching, trade items and finding and moving travelers were not a consideration as they might be with a larger cache. Given that, the creation of a stage of a multicache at the same location fufills the same intent except that the finder has to continue to at least one more location to claim the smiley.

Link to comment

I had such a problem with 7 places of interest. The way I over came this was to make it a multi cache. This was the didtance rules dont come into play and you can get people to see the sites you would like them to.

the distance rules do come in to play if you hide something there though. They only get around it if it is used as a virtual waypoint. (ie count the number of fence posts and add that to (x number) to locate stage 2)

Link to comment

I had such a problem with 7 places of interest. The way I over came this was to make it a multi cache. This was the didtance rules dont come into play and you can get people to see the sites you would like them to.

the distance rules do come in to play if you hide something there though. They only get around it if it is used as a virtual waypoint. (ie count the number of fence posts and add that to (x number) to locate stage 2)

 

From item 6 in the placement guidelines:

 

"Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements."

 

The guidelines indicate: " A physical stage is defined as any stage that contains a physical element placed by the geocache owner, such as a container or a tag with the next set of coordinates."

Edited by Michaelcycle
Link to comment

I had such a problem with 7 places of interest. The way I over came this was to make it a multi cache. This was the didtance rules dont come into play and you can get people to see the sites you would like them to.

the distance rules do come in to play if you hide something there though. They only get around it if it is used as a virtual waypoint. (ie count the number of fence posts and add that to (x number) to locate stage 2)

 

From item 6 in the placement guidelines:

 

"Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements."

 

The guidelines indicate: " A physical stage is defined as any stage that contains a physical element placed by the geocache owner, such as a container or a tag with the next set of coordinates."

 

In this instance, with a physical element of another cache within 528' a virtual stage would be needed.

Edited by Michaelcycle
Link to comment

I had such a problem with 7 places of interest. The way I over came this was to make it a multi cache. This was the didtance rules dont come into play and you can get people to see the sites you would like them to.

the distance rules do come in to play if you hide something there though. They only get around it if it is used as a virtual waypoint. (ie count the number of fence posts and add that to (x number) to locate stage 2)

 

From item 6 in the placement guidelines:

 

"Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements."

 

The guidelines indicate: " A physical stage is defined as any stage that contains a physical element placed by the geocache owner, such as a container or a tag with the next set of coordinates."

 

In this instance, with a physical element of another cache within 528' a virtual stage would be needed.

 

yes, but i thought that the op's problem was that the spot they wanted to bring people to was too close to ANOTHER cache. Therefore placing a physical stage of a multi at this spot would not skirt the proximity rule, but if it was a virtual stage it would be exempt from this rule

Link to comment

Oh the joys of forums. This has reminded me why I don't normally partake. Thank you to those helpful folk who came up with interesting ideas of ways round this problem. You devious lot ;) Oh and apologies if this is a repeated subject, I'm new to the forum and wouldn't have known that would I? Bit of newbie tolerance please :)

 

To satisfy your curiosity - I had a great idea for a Lord of the Rings themed cache here with associated clues that would have been really quite tough to solve and a bit more interesting and challenging than a general plug in the co-ordinates and off you go cache. In short I'd put a lot of thought into it and specifically didn't want it as part of multi as it didn't work with my planned idea. The reason for it being a nano was nothing to do with making the cache itself hard to find, purely that the location is completely surrounded on all sides by housing and this would therefore have made it very vulnerable to muggling in any other form. The challenge wasn't in finding the cache container but in actually solving the cache location with tricky clues.

 

The reviewer is adamant I can't place it in this location unless as part of a multi, so no sensible rule bending in this situation and the cache will now have to be set by someone else as I've lost the will to live regarding battling the reviewer and the inflexible rules :(

 

Oh and to the person who wondered how I didn't know about distance rules etc after having been a geocacher for years...this was to be my first placing of a geocache believe it or not, so no, I had no idea how tedious it would be lol. Think I'll just go back to looking for them not setting them.

 

Ok I'll leave you to your forum. It's not for me, but thanks again to those who did come up with some helpul info and suggestions instead of just having a go at the poster for daring to step out of line regarding rules and regulations :P xx

Link to comment

Oh the joys of forums. This has reminded me why I don't normally partake.

Thank you to those helpful folk who came up with interesting ideas of ways round this problem. You devious lot ;)

Actually, every post in this thread has contained information that would be helpful to you, if you were willing to accept it.

 

Oh and apologies if this is a repeated subject, I'm new to the forum and wouldn't have known that would I? Bit of newbie tolerance please :)

There is a search function. It would have been easy to find threads on this very topic, had you bothered to look.

 

To satisfy your curiosity - I had a great idea for a Lord of the Rings themed cache here with associated clues that would have been really quite tough to solve and a bit more interesting and challenging than a general plug in the co-ordinates and off you go cache. In short I'd put a lot of thought into it and specifically didn't want it as part of multi as it didn't work with my planned idea. The reason for it being a nano was nothing to do with making the cache itself hard to find, purely that the location is completely surrounded on all sides by housing and this would therefore have made it very vulnerable to muggling in any other form. The challenge wasn't in finding the cache container but in actually solving the cache location with tricky clues.

So your idea is for a "Mystery" type cache? No problem, then... you can still use this location has part of the puzzle, and just put the container in another location.

 

The reviewer is adamant I can't place it in this location unless as part of a multi, so no sensible rule bending in this situation and the cache will now have to be set by someone else as I've lost the will to live regarding battling the reviewer and the inflexible rules :(

Oh. Lost the will to live, eh? I guess we won't be seeing you around then. Have a nice afterlife. :)

 

Oh and to the person who wondered how I didn't know about distance rules etc after having been a geocacher for years...this was to be my first placing of a geocache believe it or not, so no, I had no idea how tedious it would be lol. Think I'll just go back to looking for them not setting them.

You did check a box saying that you had read the guidelines before you submitted the cache page for review. I guess you lied, then?

 

Ok I'll leave you to your forum. It's not for me, but thanks again to those who did come up with some helpul info and suggestions instead of just having a go at the poster for daring to step out of line regarding rules and regulations :P xx

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Link to comment

Ok I'll leave you to your forum. It's not for me, but thanks again to those who did come up with some helpul info and suggestions instead of just having a go at the poster for daring to step out of line regarding rules and regulations :P xx

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

Isn't that a little hypocritical?

 

Ambient Skater made a similar remark and everyone crucified him for it. You even made a thread about it because he was under 18.

 

It's kind of sad to see an adult acting in the same manner that the adults chastise the kids for acting.

Link to comment
Ok I'll leave you to your forum. It's not for me, but thanks again to those who did come up with some helpul info and suggestions instead of just having a go at the poster for daring to step out of line regarding rules and regulations :P xx

 

I'm afraid you're right. You came to the forums and asked a question. "Distance between geocaches rule too prescriptive?"

 

You then went on to ask:

What do you think?

 

If your intent was only to have people who agree with you post comments then, yes, the forums are not the place for you. We operate under the [all too often] mistaken assumption that when someone asks for opinions they actually want to hear differing viewpoints.

 

For the record, I agree that the cache proximity rule could stand tweaking, but I'd like to see it increased, not weakened.

Link to comment

Hey there friedagaric. I wish I had replied to your message earlier, but it was a bit of a crazy day at work... but now here I am at home with a full belly of stew and it looks like I may be a little too late. Well, on the off-chance you're still monitoring this thread, I'll throw in my two cents anyway.

 

For starters, I totally understand your frustrations. I've gone through something similar multiple times before. I once spent a few weeks constructing a very elaborate puzzle, and was lucky enough to discover that the only spot that would work (because of the nature of the puzzle) was a cache-ready spot. I went out and spent several hours one Saturday doing my own personal CITO of the area (it was in a NYC park that hadn't been maintained well) - it was at least three garbage bags full of stuff, plus a tire (!). I was beat, but happy. The place looked great when I was finished with it.

 

Went to publish the cache and... discovered that it was 432 feet from the hidden final of a puzzle that is virtually never solved (and with posted coordinates almost 4 miles away). There was zero flexibility, even though it was less than 100 feet from the "border" of the 528-foot circle. The chances that anyone would be confused in anyway were basically zero. And I had done. So. Much. Work! ARGH!

 

I was really upset. I live in an area with far fewer places to hide caches than in most parts of the country - it seemed like if an exception was going to be granted, this would be a pretty perfect example. That there was no give on the guideline was really frustrating.

 

I get it now though. If they were ever to explicitly say that there are different rules for one part of the country vs. another, cachers would lose their minds. And even when it comes to something a little less explicit - like granting the occasional exception - that still can drive people a little bonkers. Because everyone (myself included) believes that their cache deserves an exemption, so were someone to hear that your LotR cache got an exemption but their Goonies tribute did not, they then become huge headaches for the reviewers and the lackeys. So if there are a couple of workarounds available - for instance, redesigning the cache as an offset multi with a simple question to answer at the posted coords, leading to a cache hidden 100 feet away or so - you'll find the reviewers will really try to steer you in that direction.

 

As far as not fully understanding the guidelines despite being a cacher for several years... I totally understand! I have had an account for almost a decade, have hundreds of finds, have hidden several different types of caches, help administer our local forums, and *still* I'm only about 50/50 to get a cache listing past our local reviewer on the first go. It kills me! There's always something I forget about. I think I've got a pretty good handle on the guidelines now, but they are constantly changing, and it's not always easy to identify. Power trails are my (current) favorite example. There's a section in the guidelines that says "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can," and goes to to give reasons why it's a concern. Power trails used to be denied on that basis - reviewers would point to the power trail-ness of a series of caches and kick them back to the CO and tell them to find other spots. Then, seemingly overnight, the interpretation of that section changed, and 1000-plus cache trails started popping up all over the country. One day, it's a guideline violation, the next day, it's not, and I was never able to detect a change in the wording in the guidelines.

 

So if it turns out that you come across something in the guidelines that you aren't sure about? You could have them tattooed on your body and I still don't think you could ever really know them. I think you did the right thing by bringing your situation here to check. Unfortunately you found out that on this particular guideline there isn't much give, and that's a bummer, but hopefully some of the suggestions that people offered won't prevent you from bringing your cache to your area.

 

I'm sorry about some of the responses you got here, especially when you got called a liar. It may seem like it's you against the entire forum community at times, but please know that at least one other person (me) thought that was out of line. I hope after you put your LotR idea down for a while you can pick it up again and find a way to work around the guidelines that are currently getting in your way. My experience has been that often the first hide by a longtime cacher is a real labor of love and a nice gift to the local community, so I hope you revisit it. I have a lot of experience working around guidelines (as my 50/50 ratio of bumping into them in the first place attests!) so please feel free to contact me for some non-public advice if you think that would be useful.

 

Good luck!

Link to comment

Oh the joys of forums. This has reminded me why I don't normally partake. <snip!>

Ok I'll leave you to your forum.

You know, I just HATE that sort of comment. This isn't just "our" forum... it is your forum as well. And if you don't like it, then stick around and help change it. We are all just fellow geocachers like yourself. If you run away, you change nothing. If you stick around, you are one more voice for the positive.
Link to comment

I'm sorry about some of the responses you got here, especially when you got called a liar.

Very nice post, and I hope that the OP does come back to read it. But I must say that nobody called him a liar. They simply said that IF he checked the box that said that he had read the guidelines, AND if he had NOT really read them, THEN he had lied about that. (However, it could certainly have been worded better. )

Link to comment

I'm sorry about some of the responses you got here, especially when you got called a liar.

Very nice post, and I hope that the OP does come back to read it. But I must say that nobody called him a liar. They simply said that IF he checked the box that said that he had read the guidelines, AND if he had NOT really read them, THEN he had lied about that. (However, it could certainly have been worded better. )

I dunno. "I guess you lied, then?" doesn't really come across as all that nice no matter how we want to twist it semantically.

Link to comment

I'm sorry about some of the responses you got here, especially when you got called a liar.

Very nice post, and I hope that the OP does come back to read it. But I must say that nobody called him a liar. They simply said that IF he checked the box that said that he had read the guidelines, AND if he had NOT really read them, THEN he had lied about that. (However, it could certainly have been worded better. )

I dunno. "I guess you lied, then?" doesn't really come across as all that nice no matter how we want to twist it semantically.

I'm not playing with semantics. That is exactly what he said, and I'm sure what he meant to say. But more importantly was what I said in parenthesis. "I guess you didn't read them well enough", or even, "I guess you didn't understand them well enough" would have been much kinder, for sure, and still have made the same point.

Link to comment

I'm sorry about some of the responses you got here, especially when you got called a liar.

Very nice post, and I hope that the OP does come back to read it. But I must say that nobody called him a liar. They simply said that IF he checked the box that said that he had read the guidelines, AND if he had NOT really read them, THEN he had lied about that. (However, it could certainly have been worded better. )

I dunno. "I guess you lied, then?" doesn't really come across as all that nice no matter how we want to twist it semantically.

I'm not playing with semantics. That is exactly what he said, and I'm sure what he meant to say. But more importantly was what I said in parenthesis. "I guess you didn't read them well enough", or even, "I guess you didn't understand them well enough" would have been much kinder, for sure, and still have made the same point.

I have to disagree with my near sided canine friend. What he actually said was, "You did check a box saying that you had read the guidelines before you submitted the cache page for review. I guess you lied, then?"

 

The implication is since he doesn't appear to know the guidelines and he checked the box saying that he had read the guidelines then he must be lying about having read the guidelines.

Link to comment

I'm sorry about some of the responses you got here, especially when you got called a liar.

Very nice post, and I hope that the OP does come back to read it. But I must say that nobody called him a liar. They simply said that IF he checked the box that said that he had read the guidelines, AND if he had NOT really read them, THEN he had lied about that. (However, it could certainly have been worded better. )

I dunno. "I guess you lied, then?" doesn't really come across as all that nice no matter how we want to twist it semantically.

I'm not playing with semantics. That is exactly what he said, and I'm sure what he meant to say. But more importantly was what I said in parenthesis. "I guess you didn't read them well enough", or even, "I guess you didn't understand them well enough" would have been much kinder, for sure, and still have made the same point.

I have to disagree with my near sided canine friend. What he actually said was, "You did check a box saying that you had read the guidelines before you submitted the cache page for review. I guess you lied, then?"

 

The implication is since he doesn't appear to know the guidelines and he checked the box saying that he had read the guidelines then he must be lying about having read the guidelines.

You aren't disagreeing with me one bit. I agree that is what he said. I'm also saying that he could have made the same point without calling names.

Link to comment

From the forum guidelines:

 

Sometimes, a discussion thread strays off into a friendly dialogue or a heated debate among a very small number of users. For these exchanges, we ask that you please use the Private Message feature that is provided through the Groundspeak forums, or the Geocaching.com e-mail system. Public forum posts should be reserved for matters of interest to the general geocaching community.

 

The sentence dissection is distracting from discussion topic. Thank you.

Link to comment

Can you move the cache the 72 feet to NEAR your important place, and put directions on it to your important place?

 

Like put the cache in the parking lot to the place, or the far side of the parking lot, something that is another 72 feet away.

 

You can still bring people to that nice spot that way, and stay within the guidelines.

 

There really aren't many guidelines, but I've found what few there are are very well thought-out and very important. They didn't make these arbitrarily.

Link to comment

The sentence dissection is distracting from discussion topic. Thank you.

Much as the cache size is distracting from the reason the reviewer didn't give this cacha an exception from the guidelines :unsure:

 

Personally, these threads usually occur because the hider read the guidelines and understood that they were guidelines and reviewers could grant exceptions in some cases. The problems happen because the hider feels their cache deserves an exception. Usually they have found the perfect place for their cache, which they feel is an extraordinary hide and therefore the reviewer can play with the distances a little to get the cache published. They probably checked the box saying they read and understood the guideline because they felt that's what they mean. I'm always curious if they had a reviewer note indicating why they think they deserved an exception or if they just assumed the reviewer could tell their cache is special and deserves an exception. But that is another story.

Link to comment

My daughter and I ran into the same problem on one of our first placements of a cache. We found one at the bottom of a waterfall at the far end of the pond the waterfall fell into. We ended up hiking all the way up to the top of the waterfall not looking to place a cache. But there was a cool little cave and had the perfect hole to hide it in and a completely different experience then from the bottom far end where you would park. We went back and made the box and filled it with cache, Named it and wrote a cool story about it and all. The moderator decided it was to close. OH well I moderate a fishing site and even if I am new and don't understand the rule yet (and I do understand the reasoning) I know they are just doing there job and we went and took it back. I would not argue about it with them. Games have rules and this is one. I would never find it as a reason to leave the site of something I like doing. There are plenty of places out there. I just hope the OP don't give up on the site over something like this.

-WarNinjas

Edited by WarNinjas
Link to comment
these threads usually occur because the hider read the guidelines and understood that they were guidelines and reviewers could grant exceptions in some cases

I think that's right. And I think the guidelines even used to encourage people to bring questions about exceptions and appeals / etc. to the forums. Not sure if that phraseology is still in there, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to have read the guidelines and believe you understand them, but still have questions or need help understanding how they're being interpreted or enforced.

Link to comment

Ok I'll leave you to your forum. It's not for me, but thanks again to those who did come up with some helpul info and suggestions instead of just having a go at the poster for daring to step out of line regarding rules and regulations :P xx

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

Isn't that a little hypocritical?

 

Ambient Skater made a similar remark and everyone crucified him for it. You even made a thread about it because he was under 18.

 

It's kind of sad to see an adult acting in the same manner that the adults chastise the kids for acting.

The situation is a little bit different. Ambient Skater made that remark as the very first reply to a question asking for help.

Link to comment

Ok I'll leave you to your forum. It's not for me, but thanks again to those who did come up with some helpul info and suggestions instead of just having a go at the poster for daring to step out of line regarding rules and regulations :P xx

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

Isn't that a little hypocritical?

 

Ambient Skater made a similar remark and everyone crucified him for it. You even made a thread about it because he was under 18.

 

It's kind of sad to see an adult acting in the same manner that the adults chastise the kids for acting.

The situation is a little bit different. Ambient Skater made that remark as the very first reply to a question asking for help.

 

Youre right. Skater made his post as the very first reply after the guy say he wanted to quit. You made your post as the second reply after friegaric said he was quitting the forums. I guess that makes it ok. At least skater didn't call the guy a liar and start a thread about someones post.

Link to comment
these threads usually occur because the hider read the guidelines and understood that they were guidelines and reviewers could grant exceptions in some cases

I think that's right. And I think the guidelines even used to encourage people to bring questions about exceptions and appeals / etc. to the forums. Not sure if that phraseology is still in there, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to have read the guidelines and believe you understand them, but still have questions or need help understanding how they're being interpreted or enforced.

Interestingly enough, it seems that the section I remember has been removed. It used to say that if you were having trouble with a cache listing (placed on hold / disabled / archived) that you should take the following steps:

 

1) "First contact the reviewer.... Exceptions may sometimes be made."

2) "ask the volunteer to post the cache for all of the reviewers to see in their private discussion forum"

3) "feel free to post a message in the 'Geocaching Topics' section of the Groundspeak Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks"

4) "you may send an email... [to] appeals@geocaching.com"

 

It appears that the above has been replaced with a link to use the following form for any decision appeals:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=request

 

Not sure what the genesis of that switch was - if it wasn't productive for reviewers to feel their decisions were being picked apart by committee, or if it was just simpler to cut straight to email to Groundspeak since most situations ended up there anyway, or what.

 

But I thought it was interesting that people used to be encouraged to bring issues to the forums, and it no longer appears to be the case.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...